Children and aids newsletter

4.3 Panel discussions

Priority issues identified in the background papers were further elaborated during panel discussions⁷ on day 1 of the GPF addressing the following topics:

• 
  Operationalising a family-centered approach;
  
• 
  Strengthening national responses to vulnerable children;
  
• 
  Programming for the most vulnerable children: prevention targeting most at risk children and adolescents; and
  
• 
  Quality programming at the community level.
  

Although it was acknowledged that there has been progress in global efforts for children affected by HIV, it was also recognized that there are severe remaining constraints which make it impossible for some children to realize their human rights. The key outcomes and action points identified in the panel discussions are listed below.

Panel 1: Operationalising a family-centered approach

Presenters and discussants on panel 1 highlighted the need to:

• 
  further clarify and operationalise the family centered approach;
  
• 
  increase national coherence in dealing with children affected by HIV and AIDS;
  
• 
  build into national plans accountability mechanisms and transparency on funding including performance based contracts for officials;
  
• 
  increase efforts on measurement, indicators and monitoring required in particular for some of the “softer” interventions;
  
• 
  re-examine the concept and practice of volunteerism and find ways to support and strengthen community support cadres;
  
• 
  find new and better ways to involve men.
  

Panel 2: Strengthening national responses to vulnerable children

Panel 2 highlighted that coordination of responses, through mapping, assessment, pooled allocation resources, and tracking responses shows promise in some countries. However, it was also emphasized that stigma and discrimination remain major barriers for the response to vulnerable children as well as still insufficient resources especially for social welfare / protection. Panel 2 identified the following gaps and areas for urgent action:

• 
  need to develop child welfare systems for all children;
  
• 
  increase operational research to demonstrate the “how” to implement social protection/cash transfer mechanisms;
  
• 
  need to set clear national targets to drive a “more aggressive response”
  
• 
  set up an implementation unit (potentially separate from the relevant ministry);
  
• 
  regular reviews at national level (Rwanda model);
  
• 
  integrate OVC plans into sector plans.
  

Panel 3: Programming for the most vulnerable children: prevention targeting most at risk children and adolescents

During the presentations and discussion on panel 3, it became evident that a number of categories of children are still “missing” (street children, children in conflict, trafficking) and that the vulnerability of girls needs to receive more attention. The panel also identified the following gaps and areas for action:

• 
  comprehensive services still limited;
  
• 
  need for a more rigorous rights-based approach;
  
• 
  inadequate sex education and life skills education;
  
• 
  inadequate work with communities on prevention and protection;
  
• 
  institutionalisation as a concern with limited responses to date;
  
• 
  l
  “After hearing about all the different situation that our world is going through by being infected and affected by HIV it has opened my eyes well as it has developed my knowledge and wisdom, so I will like they start training teachers, parents and religious leaders about HIV, so that parents and teachers can have the right information, and share it on in their communities and school [...].”

  Keysi Sharinna Gordon Bryan,

  
  
  youth participant from Nicaragua
  imited value of individual behaviour change communication (BCC) unless structural changes of the conditions of marginalised children addressed;
  
• 
  legal barriers and age of consent for testing;
  
• 
  need for more meaningful participation or children and young people;
  
• 
  need to involve the police more.
  

Panel 4: Quality programming at community level

During the discussions on panel 4, the importance of understanding the local context and of having common definitions emerged as a key issue for quality programming at community level. Other gaps identified included:

• 
  too little inter-country and inter community dialogue and sharing of experiences;
  
• 
  inadequate resources especially for community action;
  
• 
  education as an untapped vehicle for prevention and protection;
  
• 
  weak and variable linkages with poverty reduction.
  

The outcomes of the panel discussions were captured by the Chief Rapporteur and fed back into the plenary in the morning of day 2.